www.Tobold.com
Tobold@GMail.com
A blog with my thoughts regarding games I am playing and other stuff in life. Please read my Terms of Service
Friday, March 16, 2007
Trading card game elements in MMORPGs
I was discussing yesterday that I wasn't expecting much innovation in the upcoming MMORPGs of 2007, especially not from a game where the parent company is EA, more famous for their 137 versions of Madden NFL than for groundbreaking innovation. But that doesn't mean that I don't think innovation in MMORPG wouldn't be possible, or that I wouldn't want it. I *am* critical towards the current trend to make MMORPGs more action-based, because the effect of lag on that would be horrible. But what I think could be a big innovation in MMORPGs is the use of elements from trading card games.
If I had 50 million dollar spare to invest in a MMORPG, which is unlikely, because rounded to the nearest million I have 0 million dollars, I would make it trading card game based. I've described some ideas in the past, on this blog, and in an April's fool joke on Grimwell.com. The basic idea is to replace the hotkey button with a hand full of cards, with each card representing a possible action in combat. Whenever you use a skill, that is play a card, you draw a random new card from your deck. For the player the interesting thing is building good decks, where the card fit together in a way that you're likely to have a good hand and maybe even some nice combos. For the gaming company the interest is in the possibility to sell people booster packs of random cards. Magic the Gathering and the Pokemon trading card game have shown that this is potentially very, very lucrative.
The Chronicles of Spellborn is advertising their skill system as being similar to trading card game elements. But I had a closer look at it, and in reality there are no random elements involved. TCoS just has a revolving hotkey bar, with 6 rows of 5 skills. You can use only the 5 skills visible to you right now, and then the skill bar rotates and you get the next 5 skills to choose from. But you determine exactly the order, you don't get a random row or random skills in it, you get the sequence you've built. Now that is already some innovation, and might be fun enough. I've signed up for the beta, and if that won't work will try to get into the open beta. From the videos the game looks good and fun enough, but of course I'll need to play it to say whether it is really fun.
So the only good computer game with trading card game elements I've played this year was Metal Gear Acid on the PSP. That works very well, but of course as a single-player and offline game there is no way to for the game company to make money on selling boosters. A trading card game MMORPG in which you could earn cards in the game, but if you don't have the time for that buy them in booster packs in an online store, wouldn't even need a monthly fee if well balanced. The monthly fee business model is a barrier of entry into this genre, and the Guildwars expansion based business model is only profitable enough for the best selling games. It is not only MMORPG combat that needs some innovation, but also the business model.
- posted by Tobold @ 8:25 AM Permanent Link
Comments:
<< Home
Newer› ‹Older
Sounds like one hell of an idea, and I'm eager to see how Spellborn manages to implement their system. Thanks for the link on that game.
# posted by 
: 16/3/07 09:23
: 16/3/07 09:23
Currently, time is the determining factor in MMORPGs. If you have enough time, you will have the advantage. The CCG model has money as the determining factor. Have enough money, and you will have a considerable advantage over other players.
CCGs work when you either have the money to compete with anyone, or can choose who you play with so that you don't need to spend more money than you want to or can afford. In a massively-multiplayer environment, you won't have these options. There will be considerable pressure to spend money to improve your character or gaming experience, and this will seriously restrict its appeal.
Having an MMORPG that has booster packs for sale in the same way that CCGs do is effectively sanctioning what gold farmers do: buying your way to be a top player. I don't see a game like that being attractive to or successful with the casual players, who you have said before make up the most significant portion of the market.
CCGs work when you either have the money to compete with anyone, or can choose who you play with so that you don't need to spend more money than you want to or can afford. In a massively-multiplayer environment, you won't have these options. There will be considerable pressure to spend money to improve your character or gaming experience, and this will seriously restrict its appeal.
Having an MMORPG that has booster packs for sale in the same way that CCGs do is effectively sanctioning what gold farmers do: buying your way to be a top player. I don't see a game like that being attractive to or successful with the casual players, who you have said before make up the most significant portion of the market.
I think you have wrong ideas who these casual players are. The demographics of games in general has changed, and especially in the case of MMORPG. The casual gamer is now considerably older, and thus considerably richer than before. You're right in comparing that with what is currently going on with gold farmers: The average WoW player *wants* the possibility to get ahead in the game by spending real dollars, which is why gold farmers exist, they only follow the already existing demand. It would be stupid from game companies not to want to tap into the same source of profits.
At the same time a model could be found where you can gain the same advantage by *either* time or money. A game with no monthly fee, where you can gather the cards slowly by grinding mobs, or quicker by buying booster packs. Everybody spends as much as he wants in a mix of time and money and neither side is disadvantaged.
The current model, in which the players that use the most resources without paying more to the company get the best rewards is obviously not the best business model. Of course it is extremely popular with the time-rich and money-poor players. But the average player is more likely to be limited in time, and easily able to spend more than $15 per month on his favorite hobby. That money should go to game companies (because then it gets reinvested in new games), and not to gold farmers.
At the same time a model could be found where you can gain the same advantage by *either* time or money. A game with no monthly fee, where you can gather the cards slowly by grinding mobs, or quicker by buying booster packs. Everybody spends as much as he wants in a mix of time and money and neither side is disadvantaged.
The current model, in which the players that use the most resources without paying more to the company get the best rewards is obviously not the best business model. Of course it is extremely popular with the time-rich and money-poor players. But the average player is more likely to be limited in time, and easily able to spend more than $15 per month on his favorite hobby. That money should go to game companies (because then it gets reinvested in new games), and not to gold farmers.
I think you have it back-to-front. The average player wants to be competitive without having to invest in a resource that they don't have. In the case of current MMORPGs, this resource is time. If a player can avoid having to invest a large amount of time in a game by spending some money, which is where gold farmers come in, it can be seen as a fair trade-off. It doesn't follow that the average player -wants- to spend money this way, it is simply a way to avoid a time-sink whilst gaining a greater enjoyment of the game.
If there is a market for gold farmers it doesn't follow that the games companies should be the gold farmers. It is more likely that there is a problem with resource management in the current model. Why should someone have to spend a great deal of time grinding resources to buy a mount, and then an epic mount, when the whole point of getting the mount it to -save- time?
Look at how reputation and PvP have been changed in WoW to see how their time-sink natures have been significantly reduced. Players want to enjoy the activity and garner the rewards, but don't want it to be at the cost of having to spend as much as the next person. That was what the old systems demanded. The new systems are much more 'spend as much as you want'.
I do not think the game model you describe is a case of someone being able to spend 'as much as he wants'. CCG players certainly don't spend as much money as they would like to; they are effectively forced in to spending as much as the next person in order to remain competitive, and because some players have more disposable income than others this is often considerably more than any one player -wants- to spend. They do it only to remain competitive.
It may well be that companies can gain a more profitable business model from going down such a route. However, there has been interest in the lifetime subscription model, and many non-MMORPG players still bemoan the monthly fee, whilst spending more per month on games than that fee, as to why they don't play these games. It seems to me that players don't want to spend more money to play a game, just as they don't want a game that demands more time than they have.
Many people just want a game to play where they can invest what they want in it without being forced in to competing with other players over who has the most real-life resources. Maybe they can afford more than $15 a month, but where is the evidence that people -want- to spend more?
If there is a market for gold farmers it doesn't follow that the games companies should be the gold farmers. It is more likely that there is a problem with resource management in the current model. Why should someone have to spend a great deal of time grinding resources to buy a mount, and then an epic mount, when the whole point of getting the mount it to -save- time?
Look at how reputation and PvP have been changed in WoW to see how their time-sink natures have been significantly reduced. Players want to enjoy the activity and garner the rewards, but don't want it to be at the cost of having to spend as much as the next person. That was what the old systems demanded. The new systems are much more 'spend as much as you want'.
I do not think the game model you describe is a case of someone being able to spend 'as much as he wants'. CCG players certainly don't spend as much money as they would like to; they are effectively forced in to spending as much as the next person in order to remain competitive, and because some players have more disposable income than others this is often considerably more than any one player -wants- to spend. They do it only to remain competitive.
It may well be that companies can gain a more profitable business model from going down such a route. However, there has been interest in the lifetime subscription model, and many non-MMORPG players still bemoan the monthly fee, whilst spending more per month on games than that fee, as to why they don't play these games. It seems to me that players don't want to spend more money to play a game, just as they don't want a game that demands more time than they have.
Many people just want a game to play where they can invest what they want in it without being forced in to competing with other players over who has the most real-life resources. Maybe they can afford more than $15 a month, but where is the evidence that people -want- to spend more?
Many people just want a game to play where they can invest what they want in it without being forced in to competing with other players over who has the most real-life resources. Maybe they can afford more than $15 a month, but where is the evidence that people -want- to spend more?
Look at all the things you can buy in the real world. Most come in many different versions, from cheap to luxury. You can't buy "a PC", you can buy one of thousands of different configurations of PC ranging from a few hundred to several thousand dollars. You can buy a small car or a big SUV. A cheap small TV or a huge plasma screen. When taking a plane you can choose between economy and business and first class, although obviously the trip takes the same time for all of them. Only MMORPG are "one price for all" models, regardless of usage and demand for luxury.
Nobody "needs" a plasma TV, and a lot of people (me included) wouldn't spend thousands of dollars on one. But then I'm willing to spend $3,000 on a top-notch gaming PC, which other people will probably think silly. Neither the plasma TV nor the gaming PC is bought "to remain competitive", but because many people have some disposable income left after paying for all the bills, and they want to spend it on something for themselves. Game companies refusing to offer something for customers with more money are like car companies offering only one basic model of car with no luxury versions or options. People could live like that in the old communist states, like all East Germans driving a Trabant, but as soon as they get into a capitalistic system, they want to buy a nicer car, choosen by what they can afford. Lets get out of the soviet socialist republic of MMORPGs and into a capitalist system for these games.
Look at all the things you can buy in the real world. Most come in many different versions, from cheap to luxury. You can't buy "a PC", you can buy one of thousands of different configurations of PC ranging from a few hundred to several thousand dollars. You can buy a small car or a big SUV. A cheap small TV or a huge plasma screen. When taking a plane you can choose between economy and business and first class, although obviously the trip takes the same time for all of them. Only MMORPG are "one price for all" models, regardless of usage and demand for luxury.
Nobody "needs" a plasma TV, and a lot of people (me included) wouldn't spend thousands of dollars on one. But then I'm willing to spend $3,000 on a top-notch gaming PC, which other people will probably think silly. Neither the plasma TV nor the gaming PC is bought "to remain competitive", but because many people have some disposable income left after paying for all the bills, and they want to spend it on something for themselves. Game companies refusing to offer something for customers with more money are like car companies offering only one basic model of car with no luxury versions or options. People could live like that in the old communist states, like all East Germans driving a Trabant, but as soon as they get into a capitalistic system, they want to buy a nicer car, choosen by what they can afford. Lets get out of the soviet socialist republic of MMORPGs and into a capitalist system for these games.
High-end gaming PCs most certainly are bought to remain competitive. The whole reason is to keep the frames per second rate high, and computing overhead down, so that the PC is not a negative factor in performance. As for the plasma TV, it may be to 'keep up with the Joneses', although it could be because that's what we think we should be buying. Many people who spend vast amounts of money on cars, big TVs, or other luxuries, do so not because they can afford it, but because other people have these items and they are seen as objects of status. That's why there are so many debt problems, mostly caused by unnecessary spending on credit cards.
Even so, there are people who can afford these things, and are more than willing to spend big money on getting a better experience, whether it be driving, flying, or playing a computer game. The capitalist system is already in effect in some ways, for those with the money to buy a high-end computer will have better-looking graphics and a smoother frame-rate than those who cannot or are not willing to spend that money. It's just that the money is not going to the software company.
There have been games released for consoles with 'micro-payments' for additional features. They aren't true micro-payments, more like 'milli-payments', and they have caused controversy. One game, which I'm afraid I don't recall the name of, required spending money on additional downloaded features before any meaningful playing could be done. People baulked at this. They wanted to know what they were paying money for in the first place if they then had to spend more money to get any features. It would be like allowing the game to be played at resolutions higher than 800x600 for an extra five bucks per resolution step.
The problem with the capitalist system, which you don't seem to acknowledge, is that it is not guaranteed to make money. There is nothing written anywhere that states anyone has a right to make money off a business model, just because it is capitalist-based. If it's not a good idea, it will lose money, because people won't buy in to it. People continue to complain about monthly subscription business models, and don't want to be 'nickel and dimed' out of their earnings. The sort of model you are describing would do just this.
If there is a model for a luxury MMORPG it would be for a higher subscription, where fewer people could afford it. The benefits would include a lower latency from fewer players, and the extra money would pay for GMs to actively ban griefers, leet-speakers, and other annoyances. It won't be to give those who pay more a direct advantage over those who don't, because I can almost guarantee that the players who don't want to pay more money will leave a game in droves that caters to the rich and allows them to hit the IWIN button at the swipe of a credit card.
Even so, there are people who can afford these things, and are more than willing to spend big money on getting a better experience, whether it be driving, flying, or playing a computer game. The capitalist system is already in effect in some ways, for those with the money to buy a high-end computer will have better-looking graphics and a smoother frame-rate than those who cannot or are not willing to spend that money. It's just that the money is not going to the software company.
There have been games released for consoles with 'micro-payments' for additional features. They aren't true micro-payments, more like 'milli-payments', and they have caused controversy. One game, which I'm afraid I don't recall the name of, required spending money on additional downloaded features before any meaningful playing could be done. People baulked at this. They wanted to know what they were paying money for in the first place if they then had to spend more money to get any features. It would be like allowing the game to be played at resolutions higher than 800x600 for an extra five bucks per resolution step.
The problem with the capitalist system, which you don't seem to acknowledge, is that it is not guaranteed to make money. There is nothing written anywhere that states anyone has a right to make money off a business model, just because it is capitalist-based. If it's not a good idea, it will lose money, because people won't buy in to it. People continue to complain about monthly subscription business models, and don't want to be 'nickel and dimed' out of their earnings. The sort of model you are describing would do just this.
If there is a model for a luxury MMORPG it would be for a higher subscription, where fewer people could afford it. The benefits would include a lower latency from fewer players, and the extra money would pay for GMs to actively ban griefers, leet-speakers, and other annoyances. It won't be to give those who pay more a direct advantage over those who don't, because I can almost guarantee that the players who don't want to pay more money will leave a game in droves that caters to the rich and allows them to hit the IWIN button at the swipe of a credit card.
I'll just add that, having played many a CCG, I like the concept behind what you suggest, in that you have a limited selection of abilities or options available to you, and through construction of some variables you reduce the randomness and potentially create powerful and clever combinations. I would very much like to see something like this achieved successfully.
I just don't think a business model built on 'booster packs' for gaming, where money essentially becomes the limiting factor to effectiveness, would be successful, particularly in an massively-mutliplayer environment, where there will always be many people who are able or willing to spend more resources than you.
I just don't think a business model built on 'booster packs' for gaming, where money essentially becomes the limiting factor to effectiveness, would be successful, particularly in an massively-mutliplayer environment, where there will always be many people who are able or willing to spend more resources than you.
Hmm, have you heard of Megaman Battle Network? Sure, it's a mostly single-player kinda-RPG, but it has pretty much the whole CCG thing going, where you can earn, buy or trade skills that can be used in combat. There's undeniable think- and twitch-type elements in the game, but combat is based on CCG.
Tobold, what would you do if a reputable game publisher offered to bring you onto their team, telling you that they wanted to develop a AAA MMO and wanted you to be a lead consultant on it? If all the factors lined up right, would consider it? You have been writing about the CCGMMO idea for almost 3 years. You seem passionate about it. I am just curious, would you really rather be directly involved in the creationary process, or would you rather someone take your ideas and develop them into a game that you can enjoy playing? Creator, Player, or Both? I myself would hate to see something I enjoy so much as "play" turn to "work".
# posted by : 16/3/07 16:49
: 16/3/07 16:49
there is no solution, i'm afraid.
a mmorpg is just a virtual market where people come together with the same interests. no matter how you disguise it there is a simple supply/demand of object, whether it's money,time,effort,prestige,...
because there is a market, people will find out things to make a profit. this will also attract scammers because they want profit as well.
this works, because people tend to compare to other people about how *rich/cool/great* they are. hence we create ourself the supply/demand and thus the diversion.
if you change the business-model of subscription you only are changing the balance of the market (time,money,effort)
time + money + effort = 100
a mmorpg is just a virtual market where people come together with the same interests. no matter how you disguise it there is a simple supply/demand of object, whether it's money,time,effort,prestige,...
because there is a market, people will find out things to make a profit. this will also attract scammers because they want profit as well.
this works, because people tend to compare to other people about how *rich/cool/great* they are. hence we create ourself the supply/demand and thus the diversion.
if you change the business-model of subscription you only are changing the balance of the market (time,money,effort)
time + money + effort = 100
# posted by : 16/3/07 16:52
: 16/3/07 16:52
If you want to try out a good trading-card style computer game I would suggest Etherlords and Etherlords2. Etherlords2 is supposed to have some advanced player vs. player options. I don't think you pay for cards with Etherlords so you don't have the problem of players trying to buy their way to victory.
I played Magic the Gathering Online for a while and there were many ways that casual players could compete with the big boys. There were tournaments where everyone gets, say, 100 random new cards and they have to try and make the best deck with what they get. You could also just participate in casual pick-up games where there are beginner/interediate/profession rooms to find opponnents.
The main problem I see with trading-card style online computer games is that they are heavily turn-based so the gameplay comes to a screeching halt whenever your opponent stops playing you or takes too much time between turns. You can force players to take their turns on a timer but its more difficult to stop players from exiting a match at the first sign that the game isn't going their way.
And Tobold, keep up the good work! I love this blog and find it very interesting. I read it every day.
Cheers,
Zigabob
Post a Comment
I played Magic the Gathering Online for a while and there were many ways that casual players could compete with the big boys. There were tournaments where everyone gets, say, 100 random new cards and they have to try and make the best deck with what they get. You could also just participate in casual pick-up games where there are beginner/interediate/profession rooms to find opponnents.
The main problem I see with trading-card style online computer games is that they are heavily turn-based so the gameplay comes to a screeching halt whenever your opponent stops playing you or takes too much time between turns. You can force players to take their turns on a timer but its more difficult to stop players from exiting a match at the first sign that the game isn't going their way.
And Tobold, keep up the good work! I love this blog and find it very interesting. I read it every day.
Cheers,
Zigabob
# posted by : 16/3/07 20:06
: 16/3/07 20:06<< Home
